See Holmes v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 11 F.3d 63, 64 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (“[T]he party seeking such costs must offer some proof of the necessity.”); Fogleman v. ARAMCO, 920 F.2d 278, 286 (5th Cir. 1991) (stating that the party seeking costs “had fulfilled its burden of justifying the necessity of obtaining the depositions and copies at issue”); OMG, LP, 2015 WL 12672698, at *4 (“The party seeking recovery of its costs bears the burden of proving the amount and necessity of its costs.”); Waggoner v. Trans Union, LLC, 2003 WL 22838718, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2003) (Fish, C.J.) (“The Fifth Circuit has also held that the party seeking costs bears the burden of supporting its request with evidence documenting the costs incurred and proof, when applicable, that a certain item was ‘necessarily obtained for use in the case.'”). Once the prevailing party meets its initial burden to show the amount and necessity of the costs it seeks, the objecting party has the burden “of persuading the Court that [the clerk's taxation] was improper.”
However, Section 1920 does not provide for costs related to courier service fees and thus, courier expenses are non-taxable costs. See Guity v. Lawson Environmental Service, LLC, 50 F.Supp.3d 760, 772 (E.D. La. 2014); Waggoner v. Trans Union, LLC, 2003 WL 22838718, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2003).The Court agrees and finds that, to this extent, Defendants' motion for costs is DENIED.
Fogleman, 920 F.2d at 286. Courts have taxed the costs of copying documents produced during discovery. See, e.g., Waggoner v. Trans Union, LLC, 2003 WL 22838718, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2003). The record shows that Safety Vision produced the documents Jurach complains about under the court's February 14, 2014 order on Jurach's motion to compel production.
Several courts have allowed copies of documents produced during discovery as taxable costs. See, e.g., Waggoner v. Trans Union, LLC, 2003 WL 22838718, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2003). A&J has objected to these copies not on the ground of necessity, but on the number of pages actually produced.
Other courts are less restrictive, allowing costs for copies of documents or electronically stored information for production in discovery. See, e.g., E.E.O.C. v. W O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600, 623 (11th Cir. 2000) ("`Copies attributable to discovery' are a category of copies recoverable under § 1920(4).") (citation omitted); Crandall v. City of Denver, 594 F.Supp.2d 1245, 1256 (D. Colo. 2009) ("[T]here appears to be ample authority for the proposition that a prevailing party's expenses in copying discovery material demanded by the losing side are properly taxed as costs.") (collecting cases); Waggoner v. Trans Union, LLC, 2003 WL 22838718 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2003) (costs for photocopying documents produced in discovery were "reasonably necessary for [defendant's] defense" and thus "necessarily obtained for use in litigation"); Schering Corp., 198 F.R.D. at 428 ("Copying documents in response to a discovery request is, by its nature, necessary for use in preparing Schering's case. . . ."); see also Fogleman, 920 F.2d at 285-86 ("Whether a deposition or copy was necessarily obtained for use in the case is a factual determination to be made by the district court."). Even assuming that § 1920(4) covers the costs of copying information for production in discovery, KBR has not shown that it should recover the costs of the data extraction or storage or the in-house copying.
Plaintiffs' affidavits do not provide any detail regarding the charges for each particular item. However, this Court has previously held that charges for long distance, courier fees, facsimile charges, legal research, and postage are not recoverable costs under § 1920. Waggoner v. Trans Union, LLC, 2003 WL 22838718, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2003). Additionally, an attorney's travel expenses cannot be recovered as costs under § 1920.
Wright bears the burden of supporting her request for costs and expenses with evidence documenting the costs incurred. See Waggoner v. Trans Union, LLC, 2003 WL 22838718, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2003) (Fish, C.J.). Wright moves for expenses and costs exclusively under § 1920.